AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for possession of methamphetamine found in his sock during a search incident to arrest. He claimed the substance was crushed glass, not methamphetamine.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge, May 31, 2018: Conviction for possession of methamphetamine affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for possession of methamphetamine, claiming the substance was believed to be crushed glass.
• Appellee: Presented evidence that methamphetamine was found in the Defendant's sock during a search, arguing this supported the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

Disposition

• The conviction for possession of methamphetamine was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge, EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring):
  The court conducted a two-step review process for sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining if a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (para 2).
  The evidence presented, including the methamphetamine found in the Defendant's sock, was deemed sufficient to support the conviction, as it indicated the Defendant's knowledge of the substance's illegal nature (paras 2-3).
  The Defendant's claim that he believed the substance was crushed glass was not persuasive enough to overturn the jury's verdict, as the jury was entitled to reject this explanation (para 3).
  The issue of ineffective assistance was abandoned by the Defendant (para 4).